MOGADISHU, Nov 7 (Reuters) - A man was shot dead on Sunday after he refused to disembark from a yacht in the Indian Ocean that was hijacked by Somali pirates last week, pirates and residents said on Sunday.

The man was killed in Barawe town on the southern Somali coastline by pirates who had taken him hostage and wanted him to go onshore from his yacht in which he was sailing with others, including a woman and a boy.

His nationality was not immediately clear.

"He was shot and killed after he refused to disembark from his yacht and move onshore in Baraawe town," Ali Shuke, a resident in Baraawe town said.

“An Al Shabaab rebel spokesman who declined to give his name earlier said the hostage killed was South African, and his body was lying in the morgue at the town’s hospital.

He said he had been notified of the victim’s nationality by the pirates.

Al Shabaab, an al Qaeda-linked rebel group, controls Barawe on the southern coast of the anarchic Horn of Africa nation that has been mired in violence and is awash with weapons since the overthrow of a dictator in 1991.

The UN-backed administration of President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed controls just a few blocks of the capital.”

—

“Earlier this week, Mwangura said he also was trying to verify reports that the sailors were British.

The British foreign office has said it had heard of the reports of the hijacking, and was investigating the incident.”

7
posted on 11/07/2010 11:16:48 AM PST
by Texas Fossil
(Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)

For the life of me I don’t understand why these vessels don’t have guns and just blow the pirates out of the water. One warning shot and after that it would be all over. Or, what the heck, why waste a good warning shot?

The man was killed in Barawe town on the southern Somali coastline by pirates who had taken him hostage and wanted him to go onshore from his yacht in which he was sailing with others, including a woman and a boy.

I thought it was a worldwide agreement that ships and boats wouldn't carry weapons to defend themselves outside of military craft?

A private yacht with a small crew might have a pistol, shotgun or rifle.

The pirates WILL HAVE AK-47s, RPGs and maybe frags.

To safely defend a small yacht you would need a .50BMG [Barret or similar] (reach out and touch someone!), several suitably backed Claymores and a few autoloaders. Plus the crew would have to be trained to use the weapons and willing to KILL their attackers.

Finally, the pirates often attack in high speed smaller boats based with a larger mother ship, i.e. they have reinforcements that you can’t outrun.

And it’s a win-win situation for the pirates. Even when they’re caught, they’re almost always released- either outright or to some local “authority”. We need more situations like the one where the U.S. Navy ship was trailing the pirates who had the American as hostage. Idiot Obama gave orders to shoot only if the hostage’s life was in danger. Luckily, the Navy ship captain decided to “obey” Obama’s orders by waiting until one of the pirates scratched his nose the wrong way and the Navy sharpshooters blew two heads off. Obama was smart enough not to complain.

Exactly. The civilized world continues to keep its collective head buried firmly in the sand. They refuse to acknowledge that these pirates have no regard for the lives of others, and they are merely operating on a very simple cost-benefit analysis. They would stop tomorrow if the price became too high.

Haven't heard of a Russian flagged ship being hijacked since they set a pirate crew adrift with no engine or water a few months back.

Among the many other problems is that most crewmen on freighters are Filipinos and Bangaladeshis and, etc. who are paid slave wages and are not trained or inclined to take up arms in defense of their boss’s ship. That’s why you have to pay big time for mercs.

I recall a scene in the Military Channel’s recent “Special Ops” reality show when our heroes are acting as unarmed fisheries enforcers for Liberia and they are boarding and searching an poaching fishing vessel. They’re unarmed and surrounded by the crew as they impound the boat but none of the men is about to raise a finger against them because they’re not getting paid to do that sort of thing and it ain’t their boat anyway.

I was wondering at the time what would have happened if the captain of the poacher had suddenly held up a fistful of greenbacks and started screaming that any man who helped him pound these guys and throw them overboard would be paid $1000.00 on the spot?

It is solely a “cost effective” response. As another Freeper mentioned, the ships aren’t armed because of insurance reasons. If Obama authorized the same type of response as the drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the pirates would lose heart really fast. And I’m talking about, once you identify a mother ship, you blow it out of the water- no chance to surrender or debate or even talk. Just blow them away.

I'm actually surprised the Insurance companies that underwrite these ships and cargoes haven't done a little recruiting themselves. It seems to me that hiring a few “loss prevention technicians” would be much cheaper than making the payouts they do to the pirates.

Some countries ban those, too. the US and other countries need to ban together and sink any and all vessels, large or small, that are not registered to countries other than Samolia. In other words, if you can’t verify it isn’t Samoli, sink it.

24
posted on 11/07/2010 12:11:11 PM PST
by CodeToad
(Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)

For the life of me I dont understand why these vessels dont have guns and just blow the pirates out of the water.

Typically, the pirates target cargo ships. The crews on board aren't paid enough to care. They're certainly not going to risk their lives defending the ship as the pirates tend to treat them well. The owners of the cargo consider paying ransoms just part of the cost of doing business.

Your tactics are sound, but to implement them requires a Commander in Chief, not the current Sympathizer in Chief. We'll have to wait a couple years for her. Until then we are not powerless. Part of the problem is the current pirate catch and release rules put out by State, DOJ and other Obama appointees and also by the Internationalists. Such rules, for the US, can and should originate elsewhere:

Article 1, Sect. 8. The Congress shall have power: ,,, To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

It doesn't say Barry gets a veto here, although Harry might be a problem. And Leiberman might bring enough friends to overcome Harry. The new House should at least try doing something here, in keeping with their apparent strategy of at least trying to win the agenda, even where they can't win the results. We don't need to declare war and I'd caution against employing the "Letters" option until significant public education were done; naive public opinion would be strongly (and incorrectly) against it and we need public support on bigger issues. But some Constitutional renewing of traditional piracy related laws would be a public opinion winner.

When its finally time to physically move on the pirates consider going after their logistical weakness, their khat supply. My understanding is most of the Somali fighters and pirates are addicted to that stimulant, but that the plant doesn't grow in Somalia. It's openly imported and only has a few day shelf life. Blocking that, at least temporarily, may be a simple, low risk exercise. The possibility of attacking while most of the enemy goes through drug withdrawal deserves at least a little Pentagon analysis. You might just get low rankers attacking their warlord drug suppliers in search of another fix.

Arms aboard ships on the high seas are governed by the nations whose flags they fly. American ships may carry any weapon it is permissible to own at home, up to and including registered NFA weapons.

Other countries’ national laws pertain in territorial waters, usually within 3 miles of shore. In many cases the harbor master or customs office will impound weapons while a boat is in port. But you had better be certain and get written permission in advance.

If i were sailing past Somalia i would buy a couple of cheap pump shotguns and chuck them overboard if I had to put in at any foreign port where they were illegal.

Maybe... but don't they also advise crime victims to do anything possible to avoid being taken to a secondary scene?

Well, that's true. This is sort of an ambiguous case.

I definitely agree that if someone points a gun at you and demands anything you own, you hand it to them, but if they point a gun at you and tell you to get into a car or otherwise go elsewhere, you resist to the death. I had figured this was the former case, but you're right, it could possibly have been a setup for a slightly lower-profile murder ashore somewhere. Seems less likely, though.

Time to drop B-52 loads of clusted bomb on every port city in that region. Kill them all let, God sort them out.

This is the kind of comment so overwhelmingly stupid it makes me wonder if you're a liberal troll trying to make conservatives look bad. I suppose it's one step better than the "Nuke Mecca" folks, at least.

What better illustration of the fall of the West than our response to these pirates. Heck, you can’t even call them “barbarians” or “savages” for fear of being accused of trying to make “conservatives look bad”. Instead of bombing the bejeezus of these primitives, the West increases international aid to Somalia. Go figure.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.